Creativity learned or natural (born-with)

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

But in my example the person doesn't copy, he just happens to come up with the same thing. It's like if I was a hermit all my life and I never knew anything about the world, but then from my observations of the world I came to the conclusion of Newton's Three Laws, the exact same conclusion. Sure it would be a "copy" but I would have created them without any knowledge of the actual 3 laws.

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

But in my example the person doesn't copy, he just happens to come up with the same thing. It's like if I was a hermit all my life and I never knew anything about the world, but then from my observations of the world I came to the conclusion of Newton's Three Laws, the exact same conclusion. Sure it would be a "copy" but I would have created them without any knowledge of the actual 3 laws.

Sorry, misread your post.. I would agree .. but I don't see how anything yoru saying contrdicts my ideas on creativity being inherited or genetically based.

But I am a much stronger believer in genetic determinism than 99% of the people on this board..

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I would call myself a strong believer in genetic determinism. I'm saying that creativity is impossible to measure and therefore unable to determine if it's genetic or not. "Why would creativity be the only talent people have the same amount of" is not concrete enough evidence for it to be genetic etc.

My example was just a way to express the inability to measure creativity.Edit: Especially when it's ildefined.

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

I would call myself a strong believer in genetic determinism. I'm saying that creativity is impossible to measure and therefore unable to determine if it's genetic or not. "Why would creativity be the only talent people have the same amount of" is not concrete enough evidence for it to be genetic etc.

My example was just a way to express the inability to measure creativity.


Edit: Especially when it's ildefined.

Whle I agree that "relative" differences in creativity are nearly impossible to measure.. I think we could all agree that people like Van Gogh, Emerson and Beethoven weer extremely creative and what they possesed was not a product of "environment" (and if so only to a very small degree) and it was something inherent (i.e. genetic).

Environment may sharpen or dull an existing genetic propensity for creativity but I do not believe it, in any way defines it.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Would you consider them creative in society X where they never became famous and were unknown/shunned for their work?

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

Would you consider them creative in society X where they never became famous and were unknown/shunned for their work?

absolutely. Wouldnt you? Many writers, artists and inventors were not appreciated until well after their death for various reasons.. most of which had nothing to do with peoples inabilty to see the creativity and more to do with cultural taboos, ignorance etc...

UGH.. I am never going to get this damn x60 built LOL. Damn you all and your interesting threads!

 

[BillJx]

So what are y'alls views on the topic. Are people born with a level of creativity or is it completely learned over time?

Creativity is a broad term, but I'll offer a few random ideas:

I think a reasonably high intelligence is required for artistic creativity, because art deals with subtleties. A good student of average intelligence might develop the skills, but would never be a great artist. I think this is true in all arts.

In any specific field, creativity comes with depth of experience. In other words, it tends to be a result of hard work. Most great creative geniuses have been prodigious workers.
I think this applies to business, trades, etc as well as fine arts. Creativity requires both innate ability and a lot of disciplined work.

Creativity also requires flexibility in thinking, which is to some degree a personality trait. But I don't believe there is such a thing as a "creative personality" because intelligence and experience outweigh everything else. A brilliant, committed, workaholic movie producer will probably produce creative work whatever his/her personality type.

 

[Tosh]

Somewhat relevant information and viewpoints:

1) Let's say the brain is like any other organ. It is relatively similar in size compared to any other person but sometimes there are defects. It is how the connections form that determine brain function. This is why people tend to be in balance, those who are well-rounded (most) are known as the norms. Those who are more inclined to certain traits lack other traits. Studies will often involve extremes where observations are more obvious. For instance, an autistic savant, who can photographically replicate what he sees from a helicopter when looking down on a city. He has great mental recording ability, and great hand-eye co-ordination as he draws to scale, and also spatial awareness, but then he lacks social and language skills. To complete the comparison to other organs, some stomachs can take certain food types, some can't.

2) Genetic studies are often carried out on twins, the findings would be important in answering the question.

3) The reason why people go to Art Class or Creative writing classes is to learn. There are people who act after going to drama school, and some who haven't studied at all. Maybe there are both aspects involved. Opportunity (environmental) is important, a poor indian shoeshine boy who has to support a family is less likely to realize his 'creativity,' but then creativity can arise from hardship.

4) I would say mental determination/will power is also involved. How much does it matter to you to be creative? How much are you willing to pay for the painting materials? How much time are you willing or committed to give towards writing?

5) Most good writers read a lot. Not all people who read are good writers...

Most of the problems with this question do stem from creativity lacking a clear definition. Perhaps critical thinking is involved where you are willing to disregard an opinion even when it is largely held to be true on the basis of what you see as a solution.

The benefit of answering this question. If genetic, the uncreatives have an excuse - "Why should I bother?". If environmental, it can be blamed on circumstance. Perhaps even thinking this question is important says something about us.

 

[Cookie_1993]

i think that though you might be born with creativity, you may have to develop it through the years for a better creative mind.
to develop it during the school years we undergo many courses in art, music etc.

 

[picklefeet]

I think creativity is brought on by genetic and external sources. For example, the external forces could be having a parent or close friend being an artist or writer. A genetic source would be the way of bringing your idea to "life." For example, If you wanted to be writer, you would need a relatively high I.Q. (unless you are writing children's stories) And although I.Q. can theoretically be increased by mental exercises, it could only reach a cerain point based on your genetic limitations. And in response to Milo Hobgoblin asking why there aren't more Van Gogh's or Beethoven's, it is because people who are equally creative don't have the sme skill as those stated above. For example, I feel that I am artistically creative,but I can't draw or paint well. Just because I can't do things such as that does not make me, or anyone else, less creative.

 

[loseyourname]

Are we still committing Galton's error or is this just trying to ask whether creative is more learned or non-learned (I hesitate to say "genetic," as there are plenty of non-learned, non-genetic factors that can have an effect on human behavior)?

I would have to think it obvious that something like creativity cannot be entirely learned, as it seemingly has to depend heavily on the plasticity of the human brain, which is certainly an evolved, genetic trait. The level to which creativity can be learned would be extremely difficult to test for, however, given the many different variables that would go into it. You can't test it directly, as you can only test behavior, which would mean the expression of creativity. There are many traits that are not themselves creativity that contribute to the ability to express it: confidence, skill level, physical aptitude, cultural prohibitions/taboos, background knowledge, etc. I'd be inclined to think that all humans are pretty inherently creative, many, many times more than any other animal species. We all have the ability to do things like envision the future, imagine physically impossible occurences, and invent language. Nobody needs to learn how to do any of these things.

Are some more creative than others? Well, some certainly behave in more creative ways, and every human cognitive capacity has to be variable to some degree from person to person. No two humans have identical brains. The reasons each brain is different are manifold, with learning and hundreds of other factors each making a difference. Heck, it's entirely possible that some people are more creative than others because of genetics, some are more creative because of what their mothers ate while pregnant, and some are more creative because their parents made them solve block puzzles when they were toddlers. It could be different for each person.

 

[LightbulbSun]

From my experience as a writer I will just say creativity is inspiration. I experience high levels of creativity when I am truly inspired.

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps some are inherently creative, and therefore one is born with creativity. I'm not sure how to prove that.

But I think somethings are learned.


I create ideas or understandings of materials behavior based on what I know, learn and understand. A lot of that was learned and then extended to new areas. Some of that involves something akin to visualizing atomic structure or microstructure of materials.

I don't think that I was born with the ability to do what I do - it more or less developed as I moved along the path I took.

 

[Fletcher]

Let me try to give a definition of creativity--the ability to come up with particular solutions to a problems with multiple possible solutions. "Problem" and "solution" are used very generally here. An artist faces an empty canvas, a scientist attempts to create a theory that properly fits the data, an engineer needs a device that accomplishes a goal within certain constraints, etc. If a person is capable of quickly (relative to other persons) generating good (relative to other solutions) solutions, they are more creative.

How do you feel about this definition?

Given this definition, I feel your creativity would depend on your knowledge base (learned) and your brain's ability to access and assess this knowledge base (genetic, possibly?).

 

[Werg22]

I'll take another approach to the question. Creativity may be innate, but a good part of it comes from constantly having to use it. For example, when solving problems on a competition like Putnam, high degrees of creativity is not enough alone. One has to put his creativity in constant challenge in order for it to be refined. I used to be an aspiring artist for some time, and one thing that I learned is that creativity has to be explorer by its beholder.